Flipped personal learning


I received news from the Flipped Learning Network today about …

  • a formal definition of ‘flipped learning’
  • four FLIP pillars
  • eleven indicators to incorporate in practice

The formal definition draws a distinction between Flipped Learning and a Flipped Classroom. The definition proposed is:

Flipped Learning is a pedagogical approach in which direct instruction moves from the group learning space to the individual learning space, and the resulting group space is transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning environment where the educator guides students as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter. 

Flipped learning requires four pillars (in order to distinguish it from a flipped classroom) and eleven indicators:

Flexible environment

  • establish spaces and time frames that permit students to interact and reflect on their learning as needed
  • continuous observation and monitoring of students to make adjustments as appropriate
  • provide students with different ways to learn content and demonstrate mastery

Learning culture

  • give students opportunities to engage in meaningful activities without teacher being central
  • scaffold activities and make them accessible to all through differentiation and feedback

Intentional content

  • prioritise concepts used in direct instruction for learners to access on their own
  • create and/or curate relevant content
  • differentiate to make content accessible and relevant to all

Professional educator

  • available to all students for individual, small group and class feedback in real time as needed
  • conduct ongoing formative assessments through observation and by recording data to inform instruction
  • collaborate and reflect with other educators and take responsibility for transforming my practice


This news took be back to think about Stephen Downes’ recent presentation in Valencia about the MOOC of One.

In the presentation Stephen discusses being a distinctive ‘one’.

My hope is that a flipped learning environment stimulates discovery and experiential learning, values constructivism (making) and in Stephen’s words “create the ‘one’ by creating the conditions that lead to being ‘one'”. This uses these design principles (slide 21 of Stephen’s presentation)


Flipping does give me the opportunity to move to this outcome (Stephen’s Slide 27):


Photo Credit

Creating our own education (Andrew Forgrave, CC BY-NC-NA 2.0)

Personalising Performance Observations

2587165483_e0e271eb13_oSome of my personal learning network contacts have started me off re-thinking performance observations and re-view.

Michael Hussey’s cricket bag has helped clarify my thoughts!

Earlier this morning, I was following up on a discussion (Is Performance Analysis drowning in raw, useless data?) that has been running for some time in the Performance Analysis in Sport Group on LinkedIn. Despite the discussion running over the Christmas and New Year holiday there has been a vibrant exchange of views. Two days ago I was introduced to geographic choropleths in the exchange between Mark Upton, Chris Carling and Russ Shopland.

Concurrent with this reading I received an alert to a taster for Richard Hill’s Whackademia. In it, Richard writes:

For one performance review, I received a report that bore little resemblance to my own appraisal. So incongruent was its assessment of the quality of my work that I thought I had been sent the wrong review. As I glanced through the error-strewn missive, I was astonished by the ability of the author to conjure such a fictional narrative from so poorly informed points of history: innuendo, gossip, circumstantial evidence, gross inaccuracies, simple untruths and other cosmic distortions littered the document. I was confronted by invective masquerading as objective assessment. I stared at the offending document more in amazement than disbelief, but worried about how I might begin to extract myself from this hornet’s nest. I was gripped by a sense of impending doom, as if I were about to be hauled off to the Tower and my head impaled on a spike.

Elsewhere, Richard observes (about university performance review):

performance reviews in all their manifestations are probably here to stay: the struggle now is to try to ensure some equity and equilibrium is built into the system. … By and large, however, the current system of review is very much grounded in a hierarchical structure which rests on aspects of organisational life that are simply unavoidable: personal fads and foibles, and subjective preferences and judgments.

7136210011_bb45983ab9_bI think I am particularly sensitive to these ideas at the moment. One of my recent performance reviews led to me to think about the Michael Leunig’s poem The Horse I Backed which has the delightful concluding line “The horse I backed took a different course”.

I have been thinking about the New York Times’ Snow Fall too. This has disturbed me in the way reading Edward Tufte in the 1990s did. I think there is a new standard set for visualisation and narrative in the Snow Fall project.

Michael Hussey’s cricket bag? Listening to Michael Hussey about how he packs his bag and what it contains encouraged me to think about the tool kit I use for performance re-view and feedforward. I have been looking at voice options (Vocaroo), screencasting (Camtasia 2) and notes (Evernote) in the last few days. I have looked at Blubbr too. I have been thinking a lot about responsive design after the reformatting of Clyde Street. I enjoyed my exchange with Mark Upton about the flipped characteristics of this personalisation.

2013 is going to be a remarkable learning year for me in addressing personalisation issues. Given the quality of the discussion on LinkedIn I am wondering if the next step is to encourage a community of practice to share its attempts to personalise performance re-view. At present I am thinking that Drupal might be a perfect platform for this sharing.

Photo Credits

Heirloom Leica (Earthworm, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Horse race (Boston Public Library, CC BY_NC-ND 2.0)

Flipping in 2013

1471950101_e68254d595_zI have a great opportunity to become more involved in developing blended learning units and courses in 2013.

I am keen to extend my understanding of some of the open access platforms available to me. Last month I attended a Drupal Workshop and a Moodle workshop.

One of the key issues for me in 2013 will be how to encourage, support and develop flipped teaching and learning environments.

Today’s Paper.Li brought me a link to Margo Pierce’s post Online Guides Help Teachers Flip Their Classrooms. In it, Margo shares links to:

Paper.Li brought me a link to Howard Rheingold’s Toward a Literacy of Cooperation: Introduction to Cooperation Theory too. Howard is offering “a six week course using asynchronous forums, blogs, wikis, mindmaps, social bookmarks, synchronous audio, video, chat, and Twitter to introduce the fundamentals of an interdisciplinary study of cooperation: social dilemmas, institutions for collective action, the commons, evolution of cooperation, technologies of cooperation, and cooperative arrangements in biology from cells to ecosystems”. Week 5 of the course includes a link to the Technologies of Cooperation paper.

Returning from Howard’s resources, I was interested to read Andrew Campbell’s take on flipping. (I missed it when it was first posted 21 November.) Andrew suggests that “the weak link in our current learning paradigm isn’t content delivery”. He argues that “It’s only with the guidance of a skilled teacher and interaction with other learners that content becomes relevant and engaging. That’s what makes  good teaching important. Future education is better served by  investing in and developing tools that support discussion and interaction, not improving content delivery”.

Andrew proposes that tools like Google Hangouts, Twitter and Skype offer opportunities to make learning more interactive and collaborative. He adds that “Promoting interaction and discussion is the most effective way to use technology to support learning. Social media promotes and extends discussion, which is far more effective and transformative than putting lectures on YouTube or textbooks on tablets will ever be”.

One of the comments on the post, from Sharon Turner, pointed to Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and Computer Supported Collaborative Learning as additional examples of support for interaction.

I thought I would end this post with a link to a Jon Bergmann’s post (November 2012) in which he proposes that ‘flipped learning’:

  • Transfers the ownership of the learning to the students.
  • Personalizes learning for all students
  • Gives teachers time to explore deeper learning opportunities and pedagogies with their students
  • Makes learning the center of the classroom.
  • Maximizes the face to face time in the classroom.

I am delighted that Jon ends his list with the face-to-face characteristic of flipped learning. My interest with flipping is with the Socratic potential unleashed by everyone investing in preparation and thinking prior to meeting … with opportunities to reflect on discussions in preparation for the next rendezvous.

Photo Credits

Another flip (Hc_07, CC BY-NC 2.0)